Wednesday, November 30, 2005


Michelle Malkin Calls Bush's Speech Bogus

A little over a month ago, the New York Times ran an articleby James Dao about the mounting death toll in Iraq. The count had recently reached 2,000 and Dao was reporting on what he described as "the painful stresses and recurring strains that an extended conflict, with all its demands for multiple tours, is placing on families, towns and the military." In the article he told the stories of several soldiers who have died in Iraq and the struggles their families have had to endure. One of those soldiers was Cpl. Jeffrey B. Starr.

If you read the actual letter from Cpl. Starr (which is absolutely heart-breaking) you'll see that he did indeed write what Dao had quoted.But leave it to the crazies to complain. And who should complain the loudest? Well, none other than uber-wingnut Michelle Malkin. Little did she know that what she was doing would eventually come back to bite one of her own.

Two days after the NYTimes article ran, Malkin complained on her website that the Times had not told the entire story. She included a letter that she alleges to have received from Cpl. Starr's uncle in which he includes more of the original letter's content, including the entire paragraph from which the Times had quoted:

Malkin remarked:

Five days later, Malkin followed up on the story with an Op-ed piece in the NY Post and another rant on her website where she stated:

All feelings for Ms. Malkin aside, she obviously dislikes it when people misquote, or as she says "selectively edit"s, someone's words. Especially, it would appear, the words of our fallen soldiers. So it is with this knowledge that I am sure she is now applying the same scrutiny and resulting ire to George W. Bush's speech this morning. After all, Bush told us about Cpl. Starr's letter when he said:

You may have noticed the omission. Bush clearly left out the line that the NYTimes quoted to portray, in Malkin's words, a bogus sense of "fatalism." I wonder what she would call Bush's selective editing... Possibly a bogus sense of optimism?

As for Malkin, I find it interesting that someone who has played fast and loose with the truth on so many occasions should take exception to the NYTimes' "selective editing" of Starr's letter when they were clearly using his to illustrate a specific point. Bush's "selective editing," on the other hand, was a blatant attempt to eliminate any negativity or doubt that our soldiers might harbor about their mission. In my opinion, Bush's omission is a much more egregious misrepresentation of Starr's true feelings than Dao's.

Now, as for Bush, here's what I always like to say: He's always more informative for what his speech writers leave out than for what they put in.

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Weblog Commenting and Trackback by